Howto use stratigraphic terminology

in papers, illustrations, and talks

Donald E. Owen
1
Department of Earth and Space Sciences, Lamar University, Beaumont, TX 77710
email: Donald.Owen@lamar.edu
ABSTRACT: Some writers, speakers, and students have problems with clear usage of stratigraphic terminology, a topic made more
acute by the appearance of the complex 1983 North American Stratigraphic Code, its 2005 revision, and new editions of the International
Stratigraphic Guide. The basic categories of stratigraphic units are: 1) material; 2) non-material; 3) hybrid. Examples are the
well-known rock (lithostratigraphic), time (geochronologic), and time-rock (chronostratigraphic) units, respectively. Biostratigraphic
units (biozones) are used to describe and correlate time-rock units. Lesser-known categories include magnetostratigraphic, lithodemic,
pedostratigraphic, diachronic, and unconformity-related units. Sequence-stratigraphic nomenclature, still developing, is in a state of tur-
moil at present.
Both formal and informal stratigraphic units are recognized. All words in formal units are capitalized, except for species names in
biozones. Only the geographically derived name in informal units is generally capitalized. Inadequate distinction between time and
place words, both formal and informal, leads to unnecessary confusion. Misuse of early versus lower, late versus upper, and Ma for Myr
is epidemic.
Web sites and publications such as lexicons, geologic time scales, and correlation charts are recommended as initial sources of strati-
graphic information. Naming, revising, and abandoning formal stratigraphic names are governed by specific rules for names to be ac-
cepted. In illustrations of stratigraphic units, it is important to distinguish clearly between scales of time and position. Strata are not
measured in years, or time in meters!
INTRODUCTION
Since publication of the latest revision of the North American
Stratigraphic Code [North American Commission on Strati-
graphic Nomenclature (NACSN 2005)], I have been asked to
revise and update my previously published papers on using
stratigraphic nomenclature (Owen 1978, 1987) which have
proved useful to writers, speakers, and students who strive for
clear usage of stratigraphic nomenclature, including formal
terms, informal conventions, and in illustrations. The 2005
North American Stratigraphic Code (hereafter referred to as the
Code) is much the same as the 1983 North American Strati-
graphic Code (NACSN 1983), except for the completely revised
section on biostratigraphic units. Stratigraphic nomenclature was
expanded during 1983 to include formal units for non-stratified
rocks that do not conform to the Law of Superposition, so the
recommendations in this paper also may be of interest to geolo-
gists working with non-stratified rock types.
This paper concentrates on the North American Stratigraphic
Code (NACSN 2005), but authors working on areas outside
North America should consult the International Stratigraphic
Guide (Salvador 1994; Murphy and Salvador 1999), hereafter
referred to as the Guide. Essays to update the topics of the pub-
lished Guide chapters are being written during 2008-2009 by
groups of authors for the International Subcommission on Strati-
graphic Classification (ISSC). Plans are to issue these separately
in the journal, Newsletters on Stratigraphy, and they may lead to
a new edition of the Guide. Current information may be found
at the ISSC web site: http://users.unimi.it/issc.
The purposes of this paper are: 1) to summarize, in plain lan-
guage, the currently available types of formal stratigraphic units
and their usage; emphasizing the most-commonly used units, and
2) to review some informal conventions that are standard proce-
dure in stratigraphic writing and editing, but which are not writ-
ten in the Code, Guide, or any other readily available source.
CATEGORIES OF STRATIGRAPHIC UNITS
In stratigraphic work, two fundamental categories of units are
recognized: 1) material units, based on actual bodies of rock; 2)
non-material units, based on the abstract concept of geologic
time. A hybrid of these two categories, the chronostratigraphic
unit, is also recognized. A chronostratigraphic unit is an actual
body of rock that serves as the referent for the interpreted geo-
logic time during which that body of rock was deposited.
Well-known Units
For most geologists composing papers, the old Holy Trinity of
stratigraphic units (Schenck and Muller 1941) (Table 1) that stu-
dents are supposed to learn will suffice: 1) lithostratigraphic
units (= material rock units); 2) geochronologic units (= abstract
time units); 3) chronostratigraphic units (= hybrid time-rock
units). For simplicity, these three units are called rock, time,
and time-rock units in this paper. Biostratigraphic units are
similar to lithostratigraphic units, in that they consist of a mate-
rial body of rock, but they are defined on their fossil content
rather than rock type, and they are used to determine and corre-
late relative age. They have been called zones, informally, but
the formal term, biozone, is less commonly confused with other
kinds of zones. Time and time-rock units provide a dual classifi-
cation of intervals of geologic time, and the rock bodies that
formed during the same time interval. Thus, they share the same
boundaries, but with different category names to eliminate con-
106 stratigraphy, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 106-116, text-figure 1, tables 1-3, 2009
1
Commissioner, NorthAmericanCommissiononStratigraphicNomen-
clature, 1979-2009. Voting Member, International Subcommission on
Stratigraphic Classification, 1987-2009.
fusion of time and spatial concepts (i.e., Jurassic Period vs.
Jurassic System). See Table 1, columns 1 and 2.
Recently, a group of British stratigraphers (Zalasiewicz et al.
2004), in their effort to simplify the stratigraphy of time, pro-
posed eliminating the time-rock unit categories (Eonothem,
Erathem, System, etc.) altogether, replacing them with the time
unit categories (Eon, Era, Period, etc.), and combining the time
and rock concepts into a single category they called chrono-
stratigraphy. Soon thereafter, a group of members of the
Comit Franais de Stratigraphie (Odin et al. 2004) published a
similar proposal to eliminate the dual classification, but they
used a mixture of geochronologic and chronostratigraphic unit
category names (Era, System, Stage, etc.). These proposals
have not found acceptance in North America [see the objections
of Heckert and Lucas (2004) and Bassett et al. (2004) to the
Zalasiewicz et al. (2004) proposal], although they are more
popular among some European stratigraphers. See the paper by
Ferrusquia et al. in this volume for more discussion of the value
of time-rock units.
The status and relationships of time-rock and biozone units is
slightly controversial. Separate terms for each category are
well-established in official codes and guides, but a few dissent-
ers maintain that time-rock units are unnecessary because they
are based on biozones (Weidmann 1970; Hancock 1977; John-
son 1979; Watson 1983; and Witzke et al. 1985). Biostrati-
graphic units were revised in the 2005 Code, so they now are in
close agreement with those of the Guide. The fundamental unit
is still the Biozone, but five types of biozones are now recog-
nized: range, interval, lineage, assemblage, and abundance
biozones. Biozones contain an unrepeated sequence of fossil
taxa produced by unidirectional organic evolution. Their rela-
tive age is interpreted from their contained fossils. Although
biozones are effective for interpreting time-rock relationships,
their boundaries are not as synchronous as those of time-rock
units.
Although the above controversies about time-rock and biozones
units are interesting, most authors will find it prudent to adhere
to the North American Code, which has been adopted for edito-
rial use by many publishers, or the Guide for other continents.
Less-known Units
Several new types of stratigraphic units (Table 2) were first es-
tablished in the 1983 Code and have been retained in the 2005
Code. All have been used in at least some publications since
then, but are less-known than the well-known units. Most of
these units are used almost exclusively by the special interest
group that proposed them, although some have greater potential
usage. These less-known units are summarized here. However,
the reader seriously interested in using them should consult the
appropriate specialist literature. Some geologists may encoun-
ter these units in their work, so they should be aware of them.
Magnetostratigraphic Units
These units are based on remnant magnetic polarity in rocks. In
the Code, they consist of three types of stratigraphic units com-
parable to the Trinity of well-known units: 1) magnetopolarity
units, similar to lithostratigraphic units; 2) polarity-chronologic
units, similar to geochronologic units; 3) polarity-chronostrati-
graphic units, similar to chronostratigraphic units (Table 2).
Lithodemic Units
A companion to the familiar lithostratigraphic unit, which is re-
stricted to generally stratified, tabular rock bodies conforming
to the Law of Superposition, is the lithodemic unit, a generally
unstratified body of intrusive, metamorphic, or highly deformed
rock not generally conforming to the Law of Superposition.
Many geologists working with these types of rocks are now us-
ing lithodemic nomenclature (examples may be found in papers
and geologic maps in Canada and Finland). A few hard-core
stratigraphers valiantly oppose usage of stratigraphic nomencla-
ture for unstratified rocks. However, many formally named, un-
stratified rock bodies predate lithodemic nomenclature (e.g.,
Manhattan Schist) and have been used on published geologic
maps since the early days of geologic mapping.
Where lithodemic units consist of two or more genetic classes
of rock (e.g., igneous and metamorphic), the unranked
lithodemic unit, Complex, should be used. For a unit consisting
of two or more classes of rock that are intermixed due to defor-
mation or tectonic interleaving, the term, Structural Complex,
may be applied. For a unit consisting of extrusive volcanic
rocks, related intrusions, and their weathering products, the
term, Volcanic Complex, may be applied.
Pedostratigraphic Units
The pedostratigraphic unit, a buried layer of soil with developed
soil horizons (formally called a geosol), is also a companion to a
lithostratigraphic unit. Geosols are underlain and overlain by
other lithic units. Pedostratigraphic units of the 2005 Code are
not the same as the now abandoned soil-stratigraphic units of
the 1970 revised Code (ASCN 1970). Also, pedostratigraphic
terms are not used for modern or unburied soils. Most pedo-
stratigraphic units are Quaternary, but sub-Quaternary ones
have been recognized. Sequence stratigraphers commonly use
ancient soils (paleosols) to recognize unconformities, but they
typically do not bother with naming them as formal geosols.
Many ancient soils are treated informally. Pedostratigraphic no-
menclature and recognition of ancient soils is a complex sub-
ject; the interested reader is referred to the 2005 Code (p.
1559-1560 & 1576-1578) and references therein.
Diachronic Units
The 1983 Code formalized, for the first time, the diachronic unit,
a temporal unit that consists of the unequal time spans repre-
sented by types of material units (Table 2). Although it has long
been recognized that most lithostratigraphic and many
biostratigraphic units are time-transgressive from place to
place, no formal terminology has been available to indicate this
diachroneity. Some geologists working with Quaternary depos-
its have found diachronic units useful, but few examples have
been published.
Unconformity-related Units
The most debated category of stratigraphic unit during the last
three decades or so is the unconformity-related unit, which has
been given several different names (Table 3), both formal and
informal. Many of our major time-rock subdivisions used today
that were defined during the early years of geology, including
many of the systems at their original locations, are bounded by
unconformities, although they are not formally classified on
that basis. Currently, one of the most prominent fields of geol-
ogy is sequence stratigraphy, which is based on unconformity
related units called sequences. The term sequence for an uncon-
107
Stratigraphy, vol. 6, no. 2, 2009
formity-bound unit dates from Sloss et al. (1949). Sequence
stratigraphic terminology is still informal and in a state of
turmoil. Sequences are defined in several different ways.
The earliest proposal to formally recognize unconformity-related
units was that of Chang (1975), who named them synthems.
The ISSC (International Subcommission on Stratigraphic Clas-
sification) adopted the term synthem as the basic unit of formal
unconformity-bounded units (Salvador 1994). They were de-
fined as A body of rocks bounded above and below by specifi-
cally designated, significant and demonstrable discontinuties in
the stratigraphic succession (Salvador 1994, p 46). NACSN
(1983) had previously established a similar unit called an
allostratigraphic unit, defined as a mappable body of rock
that is defined and identified on the basis of its bounding discon-
tinuities. Some details of usage of allostratigraphic units were
modified in the 2005 Code.
Early workers in seismic stratigraphy (Vail et al. 1977) bor-
rowed the term sequence of Sloss et al. (1949) and called it a
depositional sequence, recognized on a seismic section by its
bounding unconformities (or correlative conformities). This
unit has also been called a seismic sequence. Sloss (1963)
viewed the sequence as a major lithostratigraphic unit bounded
by unconformities, but Vail et al. (1977) emphasized its
chronostratigraphic significance. Later, the genetic strati-
graphic sequence of Galloway (1989) was defined by maxi-
mum-flooding surfaces as boundaries rather than
unconformities, but these surfaces may be locally unconform-
able, mostly due to non-deposition. All types of sequences are
still treated informally. Currently, the most contentious issue
about sequences seems to be the choice of which surface to
trace as an approximation of the correlative conformity, which
has no physical characteristic itself. Many workers, sometimes
called the Exxon school, tend to use a mixture of empirical and
theoretical surfaces to bound or subdivide a sequence, espe-
cially on seismic profiles. Others, mostly workers who empha-
size outcrop and well-log data, tend to use empirical surfaces
such as in the T-R sequence of Embry and Johannessen (1992)
to bound or subdivide a sequence. For details on these two con-
trasting approaches, see the series of short papers by Embry
(2008-2009) and a longer paper by Catuneanu et al. (2009).
Nevertheless, the ability to trace a sequence throughout a
depositional basin by extending it beyond the point where
unconformities become conformable has been very valuable in
stratigraphic analysis.
Authors should take advantage of the wide choice of potentially
useful unconformity-related stratigraphic units, but the diversity
of concepts and usages is complex. So, take care. The debate
over which type (or types) of unconformity-bounded unit that
may eventually gain general acceptance should be interesting to
follow, and the debate has become acrimonious (See
http://strata.geol.sc.edu.) Currently, sequences are most used;
synthems are uncommonly used; allostratigraphic units are
moderately used. A recent paper by Rsnen et al. (2009) pro-
poses that allostratigraphic units be the principal stratigraphic
unit used for Quaternary glacial deposits with lithostratigraphic
units being subordinate to them.
Unconformity and Hiatus Terminology
Although terminology of unconformities and their associated
time significance is not formally addressed in the Code, much
confusion of this terminology exists, so it is addressed here.
Well established terms for different kinds of unconformities,
such as angular unconformity, disconformity, and nonconfor-
mity rarely have usage problems. The general term, uncon-
formity, has meant a surface formed by erosion, non-deposition,
or both for many years, although most unconformities are
formed primarily by erosion. Van Wagoner et al (1988) tried to
redefine an unconformity for use in sequence stratigraphy as a
subaerial erosion truncation surface, possibly with correlative
submarine erosion, but excluding non-deposition; however, the
classic definition prevails. The term, paraconformity (Dunbar
and Rodgers 1957, p. 119), is commonly used for an uncon-
formity without discernible evidence of erosion, possibly
formed by non-deposition. A diastem (non-sequence in some
British usage), although originally and unfortunately defined as
minor undetected breaks in the sedimentary record (Barrell
1917), now means either a paraconformity with very little time
gap or an unconformity with localized erosion such as in the case
of a channel-base diastem. The terms lacuna, hiatus, and vacuity
are used for the interpreted time gap at an unconformity (uncon-
formities are real stratigraphic contacts, not interpreted time
gaps). The term, lacuna was defined by Gignoux (1955, p.
15-16) as a broad term for the interpretive time unrecorded in
the stratigraphic record at an unconformity. A lacuna consists of
two specific parts (Wheeler 1958): 1) the erosional vacuity (or,
simply, vacuity) (Wheeler 1958, p. 1057) or time unrecorded
due to erosion of previously deposited strata, and 2) the hiatus
(Grabau 1906a, p. 90, and 1906b, p. 616) or time unrecorded
due to non-deposition of strata. This distinct original meaning
108
Donald E. Owen: How to use stratigraphic terminology in papers, illustrations, and talks
TABLE 1
Hierarchy of well-known stratigraphic units in the Code listed in decreasing order of rank. Fundamental units, which are in bold type, are the original, nec-
essary rank within each category. Other ranks are optional. Units on the same row in columns 1-3 are of equivalent rank, but units in column 4 are com-
pletely independent of the rank of units in columns 1-3.
of hiatus as non-deposition only is being lost because many ge-
ologists, especially North Americans and sequence stratigra-
phers, have commonly used hiatus as the equivalent of lacuna,
perhaps because it was used in that way by Blackwelder (1909)
in a well known paper on unconformities. Perhaps, using a new
term, non-depositional hiatus, would preserve the distinction
between erosional vacuity and hiatus. As a practical matter,
however, in many studies, we do not have enough data to differ-
entiate between non-deposition and erosion.
Other Units
New categories of stratigraphic units are formalized from time to
time, and others are abandoned when they seem to serve no
practical purpose after a trial period. For example, the geo-
logic-climate units of the revised Code (ACSN 1970) were
omitted in the 1983 and 2005 Codes. On the other hand, formal
recognition of hydrostratigraphic units (e.g., aquifers) has been
discussed by NACSN, but no proposal has been accepted. Geol-
ogists wishing to petition NACSN should follow the procedures
outlined in its bylaws (Owen et al. 1985, and Owen et al., this
volume). Many changes in the Code have originated from
outside petitions, so dont be bashful.
CAPITALIZATION: FORMAL VERSUS INFORMAL
NAMES
Many writers seem confused about the conventions for capital-
ization of stratigraphic names, but speakers never encounter
this problem except in preparing slides. The rule is simple: All
words in every formally named stratigraphic unit begin
with capital letters except for the specific name in a biozone.
This rule has been in effect since the 1961 Code (ACSN 1961),
so be aware of this in papers published before 1961. All of the
ranks of stratigraphic units listed in Tables 1, 2, and 3 are for-
mal, except for the sequence-stratigraphic units (sequences).
For example, the Whitewater Arroyo Shale Tongue of the
Mancos Shale, in northwestern New Mexico, is contained
within the Cenomanian Stage, which was deposited during the
early part of the Late Cretaceous Epoch. However, in some in-
stances, stratigraphic units are used informally, even if they
have geographic names, especially in subsurface work (the X
bentonite, upper Hackberry sand, etc.). For example, a widely
recognized subsurface Pennsylvanian rock unit in the Arkoma
Basin is known as the Spiro sandstone (note the initial lowercase
letter in sandstone), an informal basal Atokan unit not to be con-
fused with the Spiro Sandstone (note the initial uppercase letter in
Sandstone), a formal Desmoinesian rock unit recognized on the
surface in the same area. Such duplication of the geographic
part of stratigraphic names should be avoided for obvious
reasons, but it does occur.
Geochronologic and Chronostratigraphic Units
The most troublesome instance of capitalization problems of
stratigraphic names usually involves geochronologic/chono-
stratigraphic units. Most Phanerozoic Period/System and Ep-
och/Series names, and some boundaries, (most exceptions are
among Cambrian and Ordovician subdivisions, which are in-
complete as of this writing) have been formally proposed and
agreed upon by appropriate international organizations. See
Gradstein et al. 2004 (or http://www.stratigraphy.org/scale04.pdf)
and Ogg et al. 2008 for the international geological time scale
and USGS Geologic Names Committee 2007 (or
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2007/3015/) for the U.S. geologic time
scale. These International and U.S. geological time scales are in
close, but not perfect agreement. Therefore, authors may write
Middle Devonian, Late Cretaceous, and so on, with some confi-
dence. But, the U.S. scale recognizes the Tertiary, and the inter-
national scale does not. The status and lower boundary of the
Quaternary is in spirited dispute as of this writing (see Aubry and
others 2005, and Salvador 2006). Also, some Epochs/Series
(e.g., Paleocene, Eocene, etc. in the Cenozoic) and nearly all
109
Stratigraphy, vol. 6, no. 2, 2009
TABLE 2
Hierarchy of less-known stratigraphic units, listed in decreasing order of rank. Fundamental units, which are in bold type, are the original, necessary rank
within each category. Other ranks are optional. Lithostratigraphic units, although well-known, are repeated here to show corresponding rank with other
lithic units.
Ages/Stages (Frasnian, Cenomanian, etc.) have formal, given
names and are capitalized. However, be aware that vague terms
such as late/upper Paleozoic and middle Cretaceous are infor-
mal. Most Periods/Systems are formally subdivided into
Early/Lower, Middle, and Late/Upper, except the Cretaceous,
which has no Middle. The Silurian and Permian are divided into
named formal Epochs/Series, so that Early/Lower, Middle, and
Late/Upper are not formally used. Also the Oligocene and Plio-
cene Epochs/Series are divided into only Early/Lower and
Late/Upper. Subdivisions of Ages/Stages (early/lower
Frasnian, late/upper Cenomanian, etc.) are informal. The geo-
logical time scales cited above are based on marine
biostratigraphic zonation, but many vertebrate paleontologists
working with nonmarine strata use stages based on terrestrial
fossils. The North American land mammal ages (Lancian,
Puercan, etc.) and similar zonation schemes on other continents
have been used, but they are not well calibrated to the marine
stages in most cases (see Woodburne 2004; Alroy,
http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~alroy/TimeScale.html).
Geochronologic/chronostratigraphic nomenclature in the Pre-
cambrian has been evolving from mostly informal toward for-
mal geochronologic units during recent decades, but almost all
chronostratigraphic units still remain informal. Only the upper-
most system, the Edicaran, has been defined with a stratotype.
However, names have been adopted for the underlying nine
Proterozoic periods (Plumb 1991, Fig. 1), but these nine cur-
rently are defined chronometrically, so they are periods, not sys-
tems (i.e. Cryogenian Period, etc.). The Archean Eon is only
subdivided into eras (i.e. Neoarchean Era, etc.)no period
names have been selected yet. See the table of Boundary
Stratotypes on the ICS web site (http://www.stratigraphy.org/)
for Precambrian and Phanerozoic names. Incidentally,
Precambrian (Cryptozoic) has no designated rank other than be-
ing above the eon category.
If you use the modifiers early, middle, or late with Precambrian
or its subdivisions, they are informal and should not be capital-
ized (i.e., early Archaean, late Proterozoic, middle Precam-
brian, etc.). The Hadean eon is also informal, and neither
boundary has been formally defined, although listed as ~4600
Ma and ~4000 Ma (http://www.stratigraphy.org/) The term,
Precambrian, was formally adopted to replace the term,
pre-Cambrian because of its common usage, but this results in
an apparent absurdity if it is ever to be used chronostrati-
graphically (i.e., Precambrian eonathems), or lithostrati-
graphically (super-Precambrian rocks, etc.). Another absurd
expression relating to this adoption, post-Precambrian, has
been pointed out by Hofmann (1992) in discussing his objec-
tions to the adopted Precambrian time scale (Plumb 1991). Does
anyone know of a geographic locality named Precambrian that
we can adopt as a type locality for the Precambrian? Although
not formally adopted, the alternate, but suppressed term,
Cryptozoic, harmoniously fits in with Phanerozoic for the rest
of geologic time, and it rhymes with Proterozoic, Paleozoic,
Mesozoic, and Cenozoic, just in case you want to write
geopoetry.
In some situations, an author may wish to use formal terms in an
informal way, usually because definitive data are lacking. For
example, one might want to place a rock unit approximately in
the upper part of the Cretaceous, without really knowing
whether some part of it might be slightly lower than the formally
defined Upper Cretaceous Series. An author should clearly state
that this inexact usage is intended, and use a vague term such as
the upper part of the Cretaceous (preferably not upper Creta-
ceous). Also, remember that, in oral presentations, the listener
has no idea whether upper Cretaceous is capitalized and used for-
mally or not, unless it is clearly indicated on a slide shown si-
multaneously. Imprecise usage can be confusing, especially if
condoned by authors, reviewers, or editors who are careless with
capitalization, so it should be avoided.
TIME WARPS AND PITFALLSTHE ENIGMA OF
TIME AND PLACE WORDS!
For some strange reason, a geologist who never refers to upper
Tuesday or the late peninsula of Michigan in everyday life
will readily take keyboard, pen, or microphone in hand and in-
form other geologists about the thickness of the Late Jurassic or
the events that occurred during the Upper Cretaceous! You can
find examples of such incorrect usage in almost any journal is-
sue. I shall spare the reader of all except my favorite example.
Did you hear about the writer who managed to publish a whole
paper about the events that occurred between the Late Jurassic
and the Early Cretaceous (reference not cited for kindness)?
Authors who are careless in usage of time and place words run
the risk of implying that their carelessness may extend to data
collection, analyses, and conclusions, as well. Dont demon-
strate ignorance of the difference between time and place by
writing or speaking about early/late rocks and lower/upper/deep
time!
In discussing the age relationships of fossils, the clearest termi-
nology would be to refer to fossils as lower, middle, and upper,
110
Donald E. Owen: How to use stratigraphic terminology in papers, illustrations, and talks
TABLE 3
A.Hierarchy of unconformity-relatedunits, listed in decreasing order of rank. Fundamental units, which are in bold type, are the original, necessary rank
within each category. Other ranks are optional.
as in Upper Cretaceous fossils. In discussing the living organ-
isms that later became fossils, the clearest terminology would
be early, middle, and late, as in Late Cretaceous dinosaur behav-
ior. We do distinguish between paleoecology and ecology, so
why not fossils and living organisms? Some living paleontolo-
gists disagree with this recommendation, but nothing has been
heard or read from their dead subjects of study.
Authors of most papers concerning ancient rocks are involved in
reconstructing geologic history. Thus, events that occurred dur-
ing a specific time interval in a certain paleogeographic location
are being interpreted from evidence contained in the presently
existing stratigraphic record. Therefore, an author should be ex-
tremely careful to differentiate clearly between the events
(time-bounded) and the locations (space-bounded). In formal
and even informal stratigraphic nomenclature, differentiation
between time words and place words is fairly straightforward.
Early and late clearly refer to time, and lower and upper clearly
refer to location in space. Some confusion may occur with mid-
dle, because, unfortunately, it is used in both sets of nomencla-
ture (medial has been suggested as the equivalent time term,
but it is rarely used).
Exceptions
A few exceptions to the above rules on time and place words in
stratigraphic nomenclature exist.
Lithodemic Units
Rock bodies that do not generally conform to the Law of Super-
position (lithodemic units) are referred to by using
geochronologic terms (early, middle, and late) rather than by
chronostratigraphic terms (lower, middle, and upper), because
lithodemic units generally depend on crosscutting relationships
for relative ages and isotopic data for numerical ages rather than
superposition. Thus, younger rock bodies can be under older
rock bodies in normal conditions. This convention generally ap-
plies to intrusive, highly metamorphosed, or highly deformed
rock bodies. Tabular volcanic rock bodies do follow the Law of
Superposition and should be addressed much like tabular
bodies of sedimentary rock.
The Precambrian
Precambrian geochronometric units are rarely translated into
equivalent chronostratigraphic units, because they depend on
isotopic ages for their definition. However, conventional
chronostratigraphic units based on stratotypes can be recog-
nized in the Precambrian, even though they may not be dated by
biochronology. Stratigraphers of the Precambrian often debate
the geochronometric method, based on isotopic ages, versus the
chronostratigraphic method, based on stratotypes, of subdivid-
ing the Precambrian (e.g., Hedberg 1974; Bleeker 2004). Con-
ventional lithostratigraphic units such as the Belt Supergroup
are defined in the Precambrian in exactly the same way as in the
Phanerozoic. Historically, the term Series (now used only as a
chronostratigraphic unit) was used as a high-rank lithostrati-
graphic unit in the Precambrian, but a valid lithostratigraphic
term, such as Supergroup is necessary today.
Terraces
A third exception is at the other extreme of the geologic time
scale. Late Cenozoic-age terraces of all kinds are convention-
ally referred to by time terms (early, middle, and late) because
the older terraces lie topographically above younger terraces.
For example, it may be confusing to refer to an early Pleisto-
cene terrace as lower Pleistocene, because the early Pleistocene
terrace is topographically higher than a late Pleistocene terrace.
Other Time and Place Words
After an author has mastered the correct usage of stratigraphic
nomenclature, the correct usage of other time and place words
may be even more difficult. Many of these other words may be
used rather vaguely in both temporal and spatial contexts in ev-
eryday English, but in reconstructing geologic history from the
stratigraphic record, these words are best used in only one con-
text to avoid confusion. Some common misusages follow.
Use of a term such as pre-Dakota unconformity implies that the
Dakota Sandstone is a time unit. Use of pre-Cretaceous uncon-
formity implies that the unconformity is a synchronous surface.
One should use the term sub-Dakota (or sub-Cretaceous) un-
conformity instead, because the unconformity is a surface at the
base of the Dakota Sandstone and the base of the Cretaceous
strata (or preserved part of the Cretaceous System). Do not be
afraid to use the prefix super-(e.g., super-Jurassic uncon-
formity); it is the opposite of sub-. Time words should be used
with vacuities, hiatuses, and lacunas. In the previous example,
where basal Upper Cretaceous strata lie unconformably on up-
permost Upper Jurassic strata, one could correctly refer to the
Early Cretaceous lacuna, hiatus, or vacuity, if referring to
events, such as erosion or climate change, that occurred during a
time unrepresented in the local stratigraphic record. Also, a
lithostratigraphic name should not be used in a time sense (e.g.,
Dakota time) unless you want to imply that the boundaries of
the lithostratigraphic unit are time-parallel. Few are! Also, some
geographic names are not appropriate for time or time-rock
unitsfor example, a time unit named after the town of Upper
Sandusky, Ohio, or a time-rock unit named after the town of
Early, Texas, could be very confusing.
Pairs of commonly used time and place words are in Table 4.
Careful attention paid to this rather short, incomplete list can
improve clarity of writing and speaking and may help convince
your audience that you know what you are talking or writing
about. Knowing what time it is and where things are now is im-
portantit should be just as important during the past at
paleogeographic locations. Although you may use some of the
111
Stratigraphy, vol. 6, no. 2, 2009
TABLE 4
Informal time and Place words.
words in Table 4 rather loosely in everyday speaking and writ-
ing, use them very precisely for geologic history and data.
Also, be careful of verb tenses. Use the past tense in discussing
geologic history, but use the present tense in discussing current
conditions.
LITHOSTRATIGRAPHIC NAMES
The operational units for most geologists are the lithostrati-
graphic units, mainly groups, formations, members, and infor-
mal units. Lithostratigraphic units outnumber all the named
geochronologic/chronostratigraphic units by several hundred
times. In the U.S., approximately 40,000 lithostratigraphic units
have been named, but no more than approximately 200 geo-
chronologic/chronostratigraphic names are ever used. Little
significant change in the methods of usage of lithostratigraphic
nomenclature has occurred during recent years. Therefore, ge-
ologists should be proficient in using lithostratigraphic nomen-
clature, treated in the following paragraphs.
Information Sources
Because of the sheer number of lithostratigraphic names, au-
thors may become bewildered and may need a source for infor-
mation on lithostratigraphic nomenclature, especially when
first working in unfamiliar geographic areas or sections of the
stratigraphic column. A recently published, large-to intermedi-
ate-scale geologic map or report on the general geology of the
area of interest is usually a good place to start. Alternatively, for
the U.S., the set of 20 Correlation of Stratigraphic Units of
North America (COSUNA) charts (AAPG 1983-1986) pro-
vides 570 stratigraphic columns throughout the U.S., excluding
Hawaii (Childs 1985). For Canada, a similar, but older, set of
four correlation charts was published by the Geological Survey
of Canada (Douglas 1967, part C). These correlation charts for
the U.S. and Canada essentially replace the series of 16 correla-
tion charts published by the G.S.A. between 1942 and 1960,
which may be useful for historical purposes. A list of strati-
graphic names, useful because it is compiled by geographic
area, is in Wilson et al. (1959). This list is noteworthy, although
outdated, because it includes lithostratigraphic units in Mexico,
Central America, Greenland, and some islands, as well as the
U.S. and Canada. Swanson et al. (1981) provide a newer list,
with references, but it is arranged by lithostratigraphic name
and covers only the U.S.
If you already know the lithostratigraphic names in an area,
but need historical data and examples of usage, for the U.S.,
the Geolex database of the U. S. Geological Survey
(http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex) is good and is periodically up-
dated. Published sources include the Lexicons of Geologic
[Stratigraphic] Names of the U.S. (Wilmarth 1957; Keroher et
al. 1966; Keroher 1970; Luttrell et al. 1981, 1986). The Lexi-
cons, except for the first two, cover only new names introduced
since the previous edition, with very few exceptions. The 1986
Lexicon covers new lithostratigraphic names proposed from
1976 through 1980. For later data, the U.S.G.S. published peri-
odic updates on changes in its usage of lithostratigraphic no-
menclature in the Bulletin series from 1980 to 1994 under the
title, Stratigraphic Notes.
Geolex must be used for later changes. Some state and provin-
cial geological surveys also publish catalogs of lithostrati-
graphic nomenclature. For Canada, the WebLex database
(http://cgkn.net/weblex/weblex_e.pl) similar to Geolex, is also
a good source. Published sources in Canada include the CSPG
(Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists) Lexicon Series:
volumes 1 (Arctic Archipelago), 2 (Yukon-Mackenzie), 4
(Western Canada), and 6 (Atlantic region) of a planned six have
been issued on CD-ROM to date. For Mexico, a new strati-
graphic lexicon web site has recently been established
(http://coremi01.coremisgm.gob.mx/lexicoes/) by El Servicio
Geolgico Mexicano. Compilation is in progress, so the list of
names is incomplete for now.
Please understand that there is no official organization that ap-
proves or rejects lithostratigraphic names in the U.S., Canada,
or Mexicoall of the above sources are historical. The NACSN
establishes categories of stratigraphic units and procedures for
usage, but it does not approve individual lithostratigraphic
names. It is up to each individual geologist to follow the rules
set in the Code and to use appropriate lithostratigraphic names
and categories. We do not need lawyers and judges to determine
valid lithostratigraphic usagepeer-review works rather well
in most cases. Debates about lithostratigraphic names need not
be uselessthey often lead to additional data and
understanding of the stratigraphy.
Changing Nomenclature
An author sometimes finds it necessary to change previously
existing lithostratigraphic nomenclature. Specific rules for mak-
ing changes should be followed to reduce confusion. The Code
(Articles 3 to 30) and Guide (p. 17-24) contain these rules and
should be studied before proposing changes in nomenclature.
Even when no change is proposed for an an existing
lithostratigraphic unit, it is good procedure to cite the original
reference naming the unit (see the Lexicons or databases) and a
recent paper in which the usage you are following is well de-
scribed. This advice is especially apt for controversial or poorly
known units.
New Names
If you must propose a new name, a detailed procedure must be
followed. Casual mention of the sand exposed at Cut and
Shoot, Texas does not formally name the Cut and Shoot
Sand.
The first problem encountered is usually the choice of a geo-
graphic name. You will probably find that many of your favor-
ite choices have already been used and, therefore, are
unavailable. Studying published maps of the area of interest
should suggest potential names, and studying Lexicons, data-
bases, and other literature should give you an idea of whether
your potential names are already in use. Some writers have had
to go to the extreme of formally naming geographic features in
certain areas in order to have newly available names for
lithostratigraphic units.
In North America, the Geologic Names Committee of the
USGS in Reston, Virginia, the Committee on Stratigraphic No-
menclature of the Geological Survey of Canada in Ottawa, and El
Servicio Geolgico Mexicano in Pachuca, Hidalgo, keep re-
cords and respond to inquiries on lithostratigraphic names.
Some state, provincial, and other surveys or committees also
perform similar functions. Authors are responsible for research-
ing previously used and available lithostratigraphic names and
must not expect editors to do this for them.
After finding an appropriate, available name, the author must
publish the following information on the new unit in a recog-
nized scientific medium: 1) intent to formally name; 2) category
112
Donald E. Owen: How to use stratigraphic terminology in papers, illustrations, and talks
and rank; 3) name and type locality; 4) stratotype; 5) lithologic
description; 6) definition of boundaries; 7) historical back-
ground; 8) dimensions, shape, and geographic distribution; 9)
age; 10) correlation; 11) genesis. The first eight categories are
to describe the unit; the last three are useful inferences. These
requirements are taken from the Codethe Guide has similar
requirements. Measured sections, well logs, maps, and other il-
lustrations generally accompany the description of a new unit.
An exact location of the stratotype is very important. Any at-
tempt to name a new unit in a talk, abstract, unpublished thesis
or dissertation, open-file report, map explanation, the popular
press, a legal document, an internet post, or other inadequate
publication is invalid according to the Code (Article 4). One ex-
ample of inadequate publication is a field-trip guidebook issued
only to participants. Publication in a permanent electronic jour-
nal or a publication issued on a CD-ROM, DVD, or similar
medium is considered a recognized scientific medium and is
valid. This does not include posts on impermanent web pages.
Revising Names
Believe it or not, revising (or abandoning) an existing litho-
stratigraphic unit requires attention to the same eleven topics
listed in the preceding paragraph. Perhaps the intent is to dis-
courage changes!
Most revisions of existing units involve changing boundaries.
The Code (NACSN. 2005, fig. 2) illustrates several different
types of boundaries, but it is important to remember that bound-
aries of lithostratigraphic units are based only on lithologic
change (even if gradational). Age boundaries, interpretations of
depositional environments, and taxonomy of included fossils
are not valid factors in defining lithostratigraphic unit bound-
aries. However, the presence of fossils may be considered an
aspect of lithology as in some coquina beds or chalks made up
of microfossils. Great care should be taken in establishing and
revising boundaries of lithostratigraphic unitsboundaries
should be chosen that are not just locally convenient, but recog-
nizable over the entire geographic extent of the unit. Unfortu-
nately, stratigraphers sometimes argue more about the bound-
aries than about what is between them! Authors are urged to be
conservative in proposing boundary changes. If several authors
propose different boundaries for the same unit, we are probably
better off to start over with new units if there is no consensus.
Before going to the trouble of naming, revising, or abandoning a
unit, authors should consider using informal nomenclature, es-
pecially if innovative or controversial ideas are involved.
Abandoning Units
Geologists rarely go to the trouble of abandoning units, except
in the process of revising and naming new ones. Thus, many
units fade away from disuse. However, formal abandonment of
lithostratigraphic units may be necessary in order to clean up no-
menclature. To abandon a unit formally, the eleven categories
listed above must be addressed.
Justifications for abandoning a formal unit include: 1) synon-
ymy or homonymy; 2) improper definition or category (e.g., de-
fining a lithostratigraphic unit by chronostratigraphic criteria);
3) long-term disuse or obsolescence; 4) flagrant misuse or Code
violations; 5) impracticability. If a unit is formally abandoned,
recommendations should be made for nomenclature to be used in
its place.
Authors should be careful not to abandon units when they only
intend to restrict the unit from their study areathe unit may be
valid and quite useful elsewhere. Also, just because two geo-
graphically separated units are found to be equivalent, it is not
necessary to abandon one. There may be good reasons for re-
taining both names.
An abandoned unit must be completely abandoned, including its
stratotype. Also, abandoning a stratotype abandons the name of
the unit as well. Reinstatement or reuse of an abandoned name
for another stratigraphic unit is rare, but possible.
113
Stratigraphy, vol. 6, no. 2, 2009
TEXT-FIGURE 1
Stratigraphic units in the Ficticia area, New Texico. Illustration on left is appropriate for vertical scale of thickness; illustration on right is appropriate for
vertical scale of geologic time. Note that chronostratigraphic units are used with thickness, but geochronologic units are used with geologic time. Ma, not
Myr, is used for age before the present (see section on numerical age/duration data below).
Changing Rank
Changing the rank of a lithostratigraphic unit is a relatively sim-
ple process and does not require attention to the eleven catego-
ries listed above, because neither the boundaries nor the
geographic name of the unit changes. For example, a formation
may become a member, or a group, and vice versa. Similar rank
changes may also be accomplished easily in lithodemic,
magnetopolarity, and allostratigraphic units. Rank changes in
geochronologic/chronostratigraphic units, particularly those of
major rank, are much more troublesome and usually require
submission to international committees, such as the IUGS Inter-
national Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) and its sub-
commisions and working groups. For example, the December
2007 issue of Episodes, published by IUGS., contains a paper
discussing the global standard names defining the base of the
Cambrian System at the base of the Terreneuvian Series and
Fortunian Stage in Newfoundland (Landing et al. 2007)
The main criterion controlling rank changes in material units is
practicality. For example, if a group in one geographic area
changes laterally so that it has no separately mappable forma-
tions in an adjacent area, reduce its rank to formation in the lat-
ter area. A thin, inconspicuous member of a formation in one
area may become so thick and distinctive in a second area that it
is raised to formational rank in the second area, but it retains the
same geographic name. An established formation may be sub-
divided into new formations, and the established formation may
be raised to group rank. Also, the same continuous member
may occur in two or more formations.
Some pitfalls to avoid in rank changing are 1) changing the
boundaries of an existing unit; 2) using the same name for a
rank and for one of its components (e.g., the Dakota Formation
in the Dakota Group, which, unfortunately, is an actual usage).
STRATA GRAPHICS
In papers that treat several lithostratigraphic units or any com-
plexity of chronostratigraphy, a stratigraphic illustration such
as a columnar section, stratigraphic table or figure, correlation
chart, or stratigraphic cross-section is generally necessary. A
computer program, TSCreator (Van Couvering and Ogg 2007),
for constructing stratigraphic illustrations with a chronostrati-
graphic and biostratigraphic database is available on the ICS
web site (http://www.tscreator.com/). In preparing strati-
graphic illustrations, note carefully that time-rock units are
preferentially used in illustrations with rock units, especially
where the vertical scale represents thickness, either linear or
relative (text-fig. 1). A column entitled, Age, should not be
used with a vertical scale of thickness (a year is not 365 meters
long). Unconformities and ordinary rock-unit contacts are
shown as lines separating adjacent, abutting rock units in such
illustrations (text-fig. 1). Because capitalization is used to dis-
tinguish between formal and informal stratigraphic units, us-
ing all capital letters for stratigraphic names in illustrations is
undesirable because it results in a loss of precision and possi-
ble confusion.
In stratigraphic illustrations with a vertical scale representing
geologic time, either millions of years before present (Ma) or
relative time (e.g., Late Jurassic), geochronometric or geo-
chronologic units are used instead of chronostratigraphic units
(text-fig. 1). In these illustrations, the ages, not the thicknesses
of rock units, are shown. A lacuna, hiatus, or vacuity (time
gap), represented by an unconformity in the rocks, is illustrated
as an actual gap in the illustration (text-fig. 1, right), in contrast to
a wavy line between abutting units used for an unconformity
(text-fig. 1, left).
The simple suggestions in the above two paragraphs, if fol-
lowed, should convince your audience that you know, graphi-
cally at least, that strata are not measured in years, or time in
meters. Inattention to detail in strata graphics is apparently
widespread, as a perusal of recent publications in a wide variety
of journals has demonstrated.
NUMERICAL AGE/DURATION DATA
In papers that deal with isotopic age or other quantifiable age
data, a few minor, but troublesome, terminology problems re-
garding numerical ages can occur. First, according to the Code,
use of the nouns isotopic age or numerical age instead of
the nouns date or absolute age is recommended. Second,
the term calibration should be used for the special form of des-
ignating chronostratigraphic boundaries in terms of numerical
ages.
Authors need to be aware of conventions for abbreviating nu-
merical ages. The Code and Guide recommend the following
abbreviations for numerical ages in years before the present: ka
= l0
3
; Ma = 10
6
; Ga = 10
9
. The prefixes k, M, and G are bor-
rowed from the International System of Units (SI); however,
time in years is not an SI unit, and time in years ago is not an SI
concept. Incidentally, the duration of an annum is a modern year
and the present refers to AD 1950. Qualifiers such as ago or
before the present are redundant after the above formal abbre-
viations, because duration from the present to the past is indi-
cated by their use. Avoiding the use of m.y.a./m.y.b.p.-type
abbreviations for ages is recommended. However, authors
should remember that the formal Ma-type abbreviations are not
used for the duration of an interval of geologic time that does
not extend to the present; in such cases, the informal abbrevia-
tions, y., k.y., m.y., and b.y. (or preferably yr, kyr, Myr and Gyr,
see Aubry et al., this volume) are used. The Code (Article 13c)
and Guide (Salvador 1994, p.1 6) specify this distinction. For ex-
ample, the numerical age boundaries of the Late Cretaceous Ep-
och are calibrated at 99.6 Ma and 65.5 Ma (Gradstein et al.;
2004), but the duration of the Late Cretaceous Epoch is 34.1 Myr
(99.6 65.5), not 34.1 Ma (which was during Late Eocene
time)many authors make this mistakedont join them.
Think of it this way: I may have a class that meets from 3:00 to
4:00 PM, but the duration of that class is 1 hour.
Very young numerical ages have added complications. Authors
may need to express what kind of year is being used:
14
C year,
calendar year, varve year, etc. The abbreviations b2k (before AD
2000) and BP (before AD 1950) are used by some authors.
CONCLUSION
With the appearance of the 2005 Code and the second edition of
the Guide, formal stratigraphic nomenclature has undergone sig-
nificant expansion, even into nonstratified rocks, but sequence-
stratigraphic nomenclature still remains informal and debatable.
Authors should be aware of the distinction between material and
nonmaterial stratigraphic units, and authors may need to con-
sider some of the less-known stratigraphic units as well as the
old, well-known ones.
Authors must strive for clarity, consistency, and correct usage
of both formal and informal terminology because of the com-
114
Donald E. Owen: How to use stratigraphic terminology in papers, illustrations, and talks
plex interrelations between time and space interpreted from the
presently existing stratigraphic record. Be careful with early ver-
sus lower and late versus upper. All of our geologic data ulti-
mately comes from the geologic record; therefore, treat the
source carefully, and dont call the record or its interpretation
by the wrong names.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper is dedicated to the memory of a great stratigrapher,
Amos Salvador (1923-2007), whom I admired for his outspo-
ken advocacy of stratigraphy in undergraduate geologic educa-
tion, for his knowledge and skills in producing the International
Stratigraphic Guide, 2n d edition, and for his leadership of the
ISSC.
I am grateful to Randall Orndorff for inviting me to write this
updated paper and to John Van Couvering for providing an ap-
propriate place to publish it. Ismael Ferrusquia was very helpful
with sources of stratigraphic information in Mexico, as was
Ashton Embry in Canada. Jim Ogg graciously helped clarify
Precambrian geochronologic terminology for me, and Mike
Easton improved my understanding of lithodemic units and
stratigraphic terminology of the Precambrian. Brian Pratt gave
valuable advice on biostratigraphic units. Nancy Stamm kindly
provided insight into USGS data sources. Lucy Edwards pro-
vided up-to-date information on numerical age and duration us-
age. Pre-reviews by Jeff Pittman and Richard Ashmore were
very helpful. Reviewers Mike Easton and Kate Zeigler sug-
gested many improvements, and I appreciate their efforts.
Thanks to my son, Donald E. Owen, Jr., for preparing the
figure.
Finally, I acknowledge the many authors of papers that I have
read and of talks that I have heard who convinced me that a pa-
per of this type was needed, again.
REFERENCES
AAPG, 1983-1986. Correlation of stratigraphic units in North America
(COSUNA). Tulsa: American Association of Petroleum Geologists,
CD-ROM 61, 20 charts.
ACSN, 1961. Code of stratigraphic nomenclature. American Associa-
tion of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 45: 645-665.
, 1970. Code of stratigraphic nomenclature (2nd. ed.) Tulsa:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 11 pp.
AUBRY, M. -P., BERGGREN, W. A., VAN COUVERING, J.,
MCGOWRAN, B., PILLANS, B. and HILGREN, F., 2005. Quater-
nary: status, rank, definition, survival. Episodes, 28: 1-3.
AUBRY, M.-P., VAN COUVERING, J. A., CHRISTIE-BLICK, N.,
LANDING, E., PRATT, B. R., OWEN, D. E. and FERRUSQUIA,
I., 2009 (this volume). Terminology of geological time: Establish-
ment of a community standard. Stratigraphy, 6(2).
BARRELL, J., 1917. Rhythms and the measurement of geologic time.
Geological Society of America Bulletin, 28: 745-904.
BASSETT, M. . G., COPE, J. C. W., HANCOCK, J. M. and HOL-
LAND, C. H., 2004. Simplifying the stratigraphy of time: Comment.
Geology: Online Forum (DOI 10. 1130/0091-7613 (2004)312.
0CO;2). p. e59-e60.
BLACKWELDER, E.. 1909. The valuation of unconformities. Journal
of Geology, 17: 289-300.
BLEEKER, W., 2004. Towards a natural time scale for the Precam-
brian A proposal. Lethaia, 37: 219-222.
CATUNEANU, O. et al., 2009. Towards the standardizationof sequence
stratigraphy. Earth Science Reviews, 92:1-33.
CHANG, K. H., 1975. Unconformity-bounded stratigraphic units. Geo-
logical Society of America Bulletin, 86: 1544-1552.
CHILDS, O. E., 1985. Correlation of stratigraphic units of North Amer-
icaCOSUNA. American Associationof PetroleumGeologists Bul-
letin, 69: 173-180.
DOUGLAS, R. J. W., 1967. Geology and economic minerals of Canada.
Ottawa: Geological Survey of Canada. Economic Geology. Report 1
(5th ed. ), 838 pp.
DUNBAR, C. O. and RODGERS, J., 1957. Principles of stratigraphy.
New York: Freeman, 682 pp.
EMBRY, A., 2008-2009. Practical sequence stratigraphy. Canadian So-
ciety of Petroleum Geologists: The Reservoir, 35: 5-11-36: 1-6.
EMBRY, A. F. and JOHANNESSEN, E. P., 1992. T-Rsequence stratig-
raphy, facies analysis and reservoir distribution in the uppermost Tri-
assic-Lower Jurassic succession, western Sverdrup Basin, Arctic
Canada. In: Vorren, T. O., et al., Arctic geology and petroleumpoten-
tial. Proceedings of the Norwegian Petroleum Society conference,
121-146. Trondheim: Norwegian PetroleumSociety. Special Publi-
cation, 2.
GALLOWAY, W. E., 1989. Genetic stratigraphic sequences in basin
analysis I: architecture and genesis of flooding-surface bounded
depositional units. American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, 73: 125-142.
GIGNOUX, M., 1955. Stratigraphic geology. San Francisco: Freeman,
682 pp.
GRABAU, A. W., 1906a. Guide to the geology and paleontology of the
Schoharie valley in eastern New York. NewYork State MuseumBul-
letin, 92: 77-386.
, 1906b. Types of sedimentary overlap. Geological Society of
America Bulletin, 17: 567-636.
GRADSTEIN, F. M., OGG, J. G., SMITH, A. G., et al., 2004. Ageologi-
cal time scale 2004. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 589
pp.
HANCOCK, J. M., 1977. The historic development of concepts of
biostratigraphic correlation. In: Kauffman, E. G. and Hazel, J. E.,
Eds., Concepts and methods of biostratigraphy, 3-22.. Stroudsburg,
PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross.
HECKERT, A. B. and LUCAS, S. G., 2004. Simplifyingthe stratigraphy
of time: Comment. Geology: Online Forum (DOI 10. 1130/0091-
7613 (2004)312. 0CO;2), p. e58.
HEDBERG, H. D., 1974. Basis for chronostratigraphic classification of
the Precambrian. Precambrian Research, 1: 165-177.
HOFFMAN, H. J., 1990. Precambriantime units and nomenclaturethe
geon concept. Geology, 18: 340-341.
, 1992. New Precambrian time scale: Comments. Episodes, 15:
122-123.
JOHNSON, J. G., 1979. Intent and reality in biostratigraphic zonation.
Journal of Paleontology, 53: 931-942.
115
Stratigraphy, vol. 6, no. 2, 2009
KEROHER, G. C., 1970. Lexicon of geologic names of the United States
for 1961-1967. Washington, DC: U. S. Geological Survey. Bulletin
1350, 848 pp
KEROHER, G. C. et al., 1966. Lexicon of geologic names of the United
States for 1936-1960. Washington, DC: U. S. Geological Survey.
Bulletin 1200, 3 parts, 4,341 pp.
LANDING, E., PENG, S., BABCOCK, L. E., GEYER, G. and
MOCZYDLOWSKA-VIDAL, M., 2007. Global standard names for
the lowermost Cambrian series and stage. Episodes, 30:
LUTTRELL, G. W., HUBERT, M. L., WRIGHT, W. B., JUSSEN, V.
M. and SWANSON, R. W., 1981. Lexicon of geologic names of the
United States for 1968-1975. Washington, DC: U. S. Geological
Survey. Bulletin 1520, 342 pp.
LUTTRELL, G. W., HUBERT, M. L, and JUSSEN, V. M., 1986. Lexi-
con of new formal geologic names of the United States for
1976-1980. Washington, DC: U. S. Geological Survey. Bulletin
1564, 191 pp.
MURPHY, M. A. and SALVADOR, A., Eds., 1999. International strati-
graphic guide an abridged edition. Episodes, 22: 255-271.
NACSN, 1983. North American stratigraphic code. American Associa-
tion of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 67: 841-875.
, 2005. North American stratigraphic code. American Associa-
tion of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 89: 1547-1591.
ODIN, G. S., GARDIN, S., ROBASZYNSKI, F. and THIERRY, J.,
2004. Stage boundaries, global stratigraphy, and the time scale: to-
wards a simplification. Notebooks on Geology, 2004: 02, 12 pp.
OGG, J.G., OGG, G., and GRADSTEIN, F.M., 2008. The concise geo-
logic time scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 177pp.
OWEN, D. E., 1978. Usage of stratigraphic nomenclature and concepts
in the Journal of Sedimentary Petrology or time, place, and
rockshow to keep them separate. Journal of Sedimentary Petrol-
ogy, 48: 355-358.
, 1987. Commentary: Usage of stratigraphic terminology in pa-
pers, illustrations, and talks. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 57:
363-3728.
OWEN, D. E., LASCA, N. P. and SCHULTZ, E. H., 1985. Report 10.
Newarticles of organizationand procedure of North American Com-
mission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 69: 872-873.
PLUMB, K. A., 1991. New Precambrian time scale. Episodes, 14:
139-140.
RSNEN, M. E., AURI, J. M., HUITTI, J. V., KLAP, A. K. and
VIRTASALO, J. J., 2009. A shift from lithostratigraphic to
allostratigraphic classification of Quaternary glacial deposits . GSA
Today, 19: 4-11.
SALVADOR, A., 1994. International stratigraphic guide, 2nd. edition.
Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America, 214 pp.
, 2006. A stable Cenozoic geologic time scale is indispensable.
Episodes, 29: 43-45.
SCHENCK, H. G. and MULLER, S. W., 1941. Stratigraphic terminol-
ogy. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 52: 1419-1426.
SLOSS, L. L., 1963. Sequences in the cratonic interior of North Amer-
ica. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 74: 93-113.
SLOSS, L. L., KRUMBEIN, W. C. and DAPPLES, E. C., 1949. Inte-
grated facies analysis. In: Longwell, C. R., Chairman, Sedimentary
facies in geologic history, 91-123 Boulder, CO: Geological Society
of America. Memoir 39:
SWANSON, R. W., HUBERT, M. L., LUTTRELL, G. W. and
JUSSEN, V. M., 1981. Geologic names of the United States through
1975. Washington, DC: U. S. Geological Survey. Bulletin 1535, 643
pp.
USGS GEOLOGIC NAMES COMMITTEE, 2007. Divisions of geo-
logic time: Major chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units.
Washington, DC: U. S. Geological Survey. Fact Sheet 2007-3015, 2
pp.
VAN COUVERING, J. A. and OGG, J. G., 2007. The future of the past:
Geological time in the digital age. Stratigraphy, 4: 253-257.
VAIL, P. R., MITCHUM, R. M., JR., TODD, R. G., WIDMER, J. M.,
THOMPSON, S., III, SANGREE, J. B., BUBB, J. N. and
HATLELID, W. G., 1977. Seismic stratigraphy and global changes
in sea level. In: Payton, C. E., Ed., Seismic stratigraphy - applica-
tions to hydrocarbon exploration, 49-212. Tulsa: American Associa-
tion of Petroleum Geologists. Memoir 26.
VANWAGONER, J. C., POSAMENTIER, H. W., MITCHUM, JR., R.
M., VAIL, P. R., SARG, J. F., LOUTIT, T. S. and HARDENBOL, J.,
1988. An overviewof the fundamentals of sequence stratigraphy and
key definitions. In: Wilgus, C. K., Hastings, B. S., Posamentier, H.,
Van Wagoner, J. C., Ross, C. A. and St. C. Kendall, C. G., Eds.,
Sea-level changes: an integrated approach, 39-45. Tulsa: SEPMSo-
ciety for Sedimentary Geology. Special Publication 42.
WATSON, R. A., 1983. Acritique: Chronostratigraphy. American Jour-
nal of Science, 283: 173
WEIDMANN, J., 1970. Problems of stratigraphic classification and the
definitionof stratigraphic boundaries. Newsletters in Stratigraphy, 1:
35-48.
WHEELER, H. E., 1958. Time-stratigraphy. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 42: 1047-1063.
WILMARTH, M. G., 1957. Lexicon of geologic names of the United
States. U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 896, 2 parts, 2,396 pp.
WILSON, D., KEROHER, G. C. and HANSEN, B. E., 1959. Index to
the geologic names of North America: Washington, DC: U. S. Geo-
logical Survey. Bulletin 1056-B, pp 407-622.
WITZKE, B. J., LONGORIA, J., ROBINSON, R. A., ROWELL, A. J.,
FRITZ, W. H., KURTZ, V. E., MILLER, J. F., NORFORD, B. S.,
PALMER, A. R., REPETSKI, J. E., STITT, J. H., TAYLOR, J. F.,
TAYLOR, M. E., LUDVIGSEN, R. and WESTROP, S. R., 1985.
Comments and replies on Three new Upper Cambrian stages for
North America. Geology, 13: 663-668.
WOODBURNE, M. O., Ed., 2004. Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic mam-
mals of North America: Biostratigraphy and geochronology. New
York: Columbia University Press, 391 pp.
ZALASIEWICZ, J., SMITH, A., BRENCHLEY, P., EVANS, J.,
KNOX, R., RILEY, N.,GALE, A.,GREGORY, F. J., RUSHTON,
A., GIBBARD, P., HESSELBO, S., MARSHALL, J., OATES, M.,
RAWSON, P. and TREWIN, N., 2004. Simplifying the stratigraphy
of time. Geology, 32: 1-4.
116
Donald E. Owen: How to use stratigraphic terminology in papers, illustrations, and talks